Middle-East Peace Talks: What is the bloody point?

Another piece of propaganda from the Guardian regarding the viability of the Palestinian State. Reminds one more of a WW2 image than anything, doesn't it?

Okay, there may be a point. There are lives at stake – and no-one wishes to see unnecessary bloodshed. Yet nothing makes you question the purpose of existence quite like witnessing the ineptitude of the US President’s handling of foreign policy. The BBC reports that “Barack Obama urges Mid-East leaders to take opportunity” – as if he’d ask them to perpetuate violence for the fun of it. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11160288)

Unfortunately, there are so many dimensions to this naiveté that one cannot possibly list them all on one blog. The few most pressing thoughts that spring to mind are that:

1) These talks are revolving around the most unrealistic policy aims (aka. The “two-state” solution) since the UK asked the USA for fair war-support during World War 2 pre-1941. The two-state solution is unworkable. Why? Because the two hypothetical states involved don’t like each other and feel the deal they want, even were there anything in common between what they both desired (apart from “peace”…) would be rejected for the fact they made the offer. Israel doesn’t like Palestine because the only dialogue they’ve had is in the form of suicide bombings and anti-semitism, whilst Palestine doesn’t like Israel because Islamists are an increasing majority – who thus wish to “drive the jews back into the sea” – and are aggrieved that Israel have had the gall to retalliate. The distinguishing between nationalist and terrorist is vital for the feasibility of any deal.

2) How can anyone call Palestine a state? A vague Pan-arab ideology apart – there is nothing to unite the tracts of land that would make a “palestinian state”. One part is ruled by moderates who are subsequently being rewarded by Israel and the other being ruled by Terrorists who are consequently being denied free trade and movement to stave off any potential threat to Israel. What is more, the two economies are almost entirely disconnected. Gaza wallows in a poverty that has led to political and religious radicalization. In 2006, Gaza’s unemployment rate was more than 35%, compared to 18% in the West Bank. With the exception of the joint distribution of foreign aid and political patronage, the two regions have very little to unite them. Israeli travel restrictions have made the two unidentifiable to each other – a Gazan and someone from the West bank is likely never to have set foot in the other’s home-land. (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/20/opinion/oe-savage20/2)

3) Why aren’t better options being pursued? perhaps a three-state solution or even the bifurcation of Palestine completely as political entities. If the West Bank were Jordanian and Gaza Egyptian as was the state of affairs before – then one has the feeling that with the relatively more moderate leadership of those countries, the wounds of both sides would start healing in this conflict. Though Jordan and Egypt have sought to wash their hands of the problem, they could be bribed into taking on the responsibility. Even without their involvement, a separate deal with the West Bank regarding free trade etc could be struck – meaning that at least one territory is dealt with and Israel can treat Gaza as the Pariah state – awaiting more moderate leadership. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/04/AR2009010401434.html)

4) What makes Obama think that US mediation is any more welcome than it was during George Bush’s “Road Map to Peace” – which has long since passed its expiration date? If anything, Obama’s foreign policies have done as much damage to stability in the region than Netanyahu or Abbas could ever have done. Obama’s repeated condemnation of Israel and aligning himself with much of the Islamic world’s will has only weakened Israel’s security (and cards at the table) and left the West Bank leadership completely disinterested. There is no point in carrying on negotiations as if Yasser Arafat were still at the table. Start thinking more innovatively!